Survival and growth of <i>Pinus echinata</i> and <i>Quercus</i> seedlings in response to simulated summer and winter prescribed burns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First-year seedlings of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata Mill.), southern red oak (Quercus falcata Michx.), and white oak (Quercus alba L.) were subjected to simulated prescribed burns during August (growing season) or January (dormant season) on an Upper Coastal Plain site in southeastern Arkansas, U.S.A. Survival and growth of resprouting rootstocks were compared with control seedlings through one growing season after burning. Although 100% of the oaks and 99% of the pines were topkilled by the fires, survival of resprouting rootstocks exceeded 95% for all three species in the year following the winter burn. No pines resprouted following the summer burn, but rootstock survival of oaks averaged >65%. Compared with controls, winter burns reduced (P < 0.01) mean height and groundline diameter (GLD) of shortleaf pine sprouts through the next growing season. For southern red oak, season of burning did not negatively affect (P > 0.05) the growth of sprouts during the year after burning. Although mean heights and GLDs of white oak sprouts versus controls were reduced (P [Formula: see text] 0.04) when means were averaged across burns, white oak sprouts on winter-burn plots were comparable in size with the control seedlings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".